Talk:Travel with pets
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Traveling with pets[edit]
Archived from the Pub:
I like to travel with my dog (Šelma [1]), but there is almost no info on that topic. I have some ideas:
- Pet restrictions in counries (guarantees, pet passports, vaccination)
- Pet restrictions/prices on trains, buses, ...
- Pet safety (potential diseases like rabies or canina distemper, approarch of locals, ...)
I have started to write something like that in Czech republic article. What do you think about it?(WT-en) Multimotyl 22:50, 17 December 2008 (EST)
- Not something I would personally find useful, but I think it's a good idea all the same. I think we should stick to basic info rather than try to get into to much detail about it. Your info on travelling by train with a pet in the Czech Republic is a good example of this. Maybe a subsection of "Cope" would be the relevant place for it, rather than having a wee bit about pets in "Get In", another in "Get Around" and another in "Stay Safe", which I can see might happen? (WT-en) Tarr3n 05:41, 18 December 2008 (EST)
- Seems like a great idea to me. - (WT-en) Alingelb 07:56, 18 December 2008 (EST)
- Great, hope someone writes something about UK. I feel confused about their policy even after consultation with my vet.
- I actually think it would be a great idea and it is often overlooked, but very important. Maybe not a large section, but some basic information so people know what do with their pets. It would be very very helpful. Also, adorable pup. (WT-en) edmontonenthusiast [ee] .T.A.L.K. 18:22, 23 December 2008 (EST).
- Add to Travel topics. Probably very important for those people who have a working animal because they are differently-abled, depend on the animal for their employment or are a sports person/animal team. -- (WT-en) Huttite 06:27, 13 January 2009 (EST)
Travel vs travelling[edit]
We have a range of travel topics starting with "travelling with"... or comparable. See for example Travelling with children, Travelling around the Schengen Area or Travelling during Ramadan. It seems better to make one choice for the wording, Travel or Travelling, and use it consistently, so I'm not sure we should rename this article without looking at the whole group. JuliasTravels (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- We have articles with "travel" in the title as well. Why I do agree that consistency is a good idea, maybe this issue should be raised in the pub instead... Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think we have many of those. As far as I can see, only Travel in developing countries, which seems to have been renamed from Tips to travel in developing countries recently, probably without realising the apparent status quo preference for the full verb. Now I don't have a strong preference, but I'll put a pointer in the pub, so we might gain a consensus for either wording. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think travel is better as a) it is more likely to be searched for and b) it avoids the whole mess of how to spell travel(l)ing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong preference, but would suggest "Travel" in order to avoid British vs. American spelling debates. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Travelling" is more dynamic and active in nature. "Travel" feels more static and encyclopedic. We historically have used the double 'l', so there shouldn't be any debates, and of course redirects from the alternative spelling should be created. We can use redirects to capture anyone searching for "travel" as well. Powers (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Doing a quick Google search for "travelling with children" and "travel with children", results are pretty well mixed, but with a bias towards "travelling" over "travel". The former search has 7 results with "travelling" (okay, technically one is "flying") and 2 with "travel". The latter has 6 results with "travelling" and 3 with "travel". Most are the same pages; Google and other search engines are smart enough to recognize alternate phrasings. Incidentally, I feel there's a bit of a language difference; American English tends to prefer "travelling", while British English prefers "travel". (Hence, sites like Lonely Planet and Eurostar always use "travel".) Since most of our other pages already use "travelling" in the title, and scrolling through more of these Google results "travelling" seems to be more commonly used than "travel", I'd vote to use "travelling". --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- There might be a (ever so slight) SEO benefit in using "travel" as that other site surely uses "travelling", but I am no expert on those things. As an aside, American English prefers the spelling traveling Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I personally prefer just "travel" because it's short and sharp and avoid the spelling issues. Also we don't say "Seeing", "Eating" and "Drinking" but just "See", "Eat" and "Drink". Simplicity is best. Gizza (t)(c) 02:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- Those are totally different contexts. In the title "travel with children", most people will interpret 'travel' as a noun. Powers (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I personally prefer just "travel" because it's short and sharp and avoid the spelling issues. Also we don't say "Seeing", "Eating" and "Drinking" but just "See", "Eat" and "Drink". Simplicity is best. Gizza (t)(c) 02:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
- There might be a (ever so slight) SEO benefit in using "travel" as that other site surely uses "travelling", but I am no expert on those things. As an aside, American English prefers the spelling traveling Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- Doing a quick Google search for "travelling with children" and "travel with children", results are pretty well mixed, but with a bias towards "travelling" over "travel". The former search has 7 results with "travelling" (okay, technically one is "flying") and 2 with "travel". The latter has 6 results with "travelling" and 3 with "travel". Most are the same pages; Google and other search engines are smart enough to recognize alternate phrasings. Incidentally, I feel there's a bit of a language difference; American English tends to prefer "travelling", while British English prefers "travel". (Hence, sites like Lonely Planet and Eurostar always use "travel".) Since most of our other pages already use "travelling" in the title, and scrolling through more of these Google results "travelling" seems to be more commonly used than "travel", I'd vote to use "travelling". --Bigpeteb (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- "Travelling" is more dynamic and active in nature. "Travel" feels more static and encyclopedic. We historically have used the double 'l', so there shouldn't be any debates, and of course redirects from the alternative spelling should be created. We can use redirects to capture anyone searching for "travel" as well. Powers (talk) 00:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- I don't have a strong preference, but would suggest "Travel" in order to avoid British vs. American spelling debates. -- Ryan • (talk) • 18:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think travel is better as a) it is more likely to be searched for and b) it avoids the whole mess of how to spell travel(l)ing. Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think we have many of those. As far as I can see, only Travel in developing countries, which seems to have been renamed from Tips to travel in developing countries recently, probably without realising the apparent status quo preference for the full verb. Now I don't have a strong preference, but I'll put a pointer in the pub, so we might gain a consensus for either wording. JuliasTravels (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Just a quick aside... The "historical" "we" that has used the double "l" in "travelling" was back at that other side... Which still uses it this way. This should not be an argument for either side (except maybe SEO), but I just wanted to mention it. Hobbitschuster (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- The historical "we" is us. Not you, maybe, but those of us who changed hosts. Powers (talk) 23:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
- I think this kind of changes should not be made without a discussion. Personal preferences for catchier titles or possible SEO benefits are not reason enough for page moves. Moving back by personal preference or believed benefit is just as justified and I do not like a situation where pages are moved back and forth, nor a situation where pages land where somebody bold enough wants them, regardless of the general opinion. I prefer travelling, but foremost I dislike the way the move was done. --LPfi (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)